[I2nsf] Document status and publication[ Was: Working Group document adoption]
"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Tue, 12 January 2016 18:06 UTC
Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Original-To: i2nsf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: i2nsf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86DCA1A0262 for <i2nsf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 10:06:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id v2aLRPQtDisT for <i2nsf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 10:06:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (asmtp3.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.159]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 74F431A024E for <i2nsf@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 10:06:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u0CI6iMh015232; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 18:06:44 GMT
Received: from 950129200 ([62.7.67.18]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u0CI6hdF015226 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 12 Jan 2016 18:06:44 GMT
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: "'Romascanu, Dan (Dan)'" <dromasca@avaya.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 18:06:44 -0000
Message-ID: <016201d14d63$ffc310d0$ff493270$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AdFNY/usXS5J2RvDSbe5N1rgA7OQfQ==
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1679-8.0.0.1202-22062.000
X-TM-AS-Result: No--10.062-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--10.062-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: a7KZEln0T3ZJqJ19um84KAPZZctd3P4BC/ExpXrHizywThPQD7RhKTs0 LaKvqgivRXxAIZSaNksDVMWwt6/ir5QblBoaVxK9KWuiyZLRI4CNfQEKGKzYvXFXWqTyKq+oIbr /VxndknLeVH9+UPy5/KgZFat0FgHganDgieKKhmpoMLOoNHsM9iJFkesvG4EAXentbIku22esbF DE5PYEaQ2dMJPLSwJxfwSbBMObxklviLFHxu+T9hHRbGr1ECgHGW6TfocNCnu7vsaNORPCIBzll v0af4rKp8B+3FyRXGJIcIaicD61FvwHKYYD0xYCnqTqO1KiJfkICu6i14k6HFeilmPI7oJlusgi JlHWE1AQUKDamXLK1lB/50HDxl0Dd69v7+6OOSKR1ykkpfknCrIAjfWaaVwwYQ5G2uxyeNSS+91 twQWe60DXsqRsiis04gYlnr6q/ytNfs8n85Te8v7E6GNqs6ce3QfwsVk0UbtuRXh7bFKB7nBj05 h+fesnpW4ErzjG1EJrlGwIwU84smtUyqnsu3BPPpCuffGH9zI=
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2nsf/BCPgbstOOei94VwwWcFAP6BZZ6A>
Cc: i2nsf@ietf.org
Subject: [I2nsf] Document status and publication[ Was: Working Group document adoption]
X-BeenThere: i2nsf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
List-Id: "*I2NSF: Interface to Network Security Functions mailing list*" <i2nsf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/i2nsf>, <mailto:i2nsf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/i2nsf/>
List-Post: <mailto:i2nsf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:i2nsf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf>, <mailto:i2nsf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 18:06:52 -0000
Replying to Dan's top-of thread post... > I support the adoption, but: > > - if the WG consensus is to go ahead with two documents, and this consensus is > blessed by the AD, then we should split the milestones as well Yup. I can do that bit of house-keeping. Wrt the discussion of publish as an RFC or not, the charter is pretty clear. For now it will be helpful for the WG to have an "official" place where we document our thoughts and ideas. Once we start to work on the protocol we may find that we no longer need this material, or we may consider it a fundamental foundation that we want archived in a published form. We'll know what we think when we get further down the line, and it isn't a decision we need to (or can) make at the moment. > - both documents were published with the intended status of 'Standards track' > which is odd for Use Cases and Problem Statement ,as well as for Gap Analysis > documents. Unless there is a good justification (which I am interested to hear) I > suggest that they are adopted with the intended status of Informational Well, I-Ds aren't published they are posted. RFCs are published. I think you're right that if these become RFCs they will be Informational. That's something we can handle along the way. Many thanks, Adrian -- Celebrate the New Year by buying someone you love a book. Tales from the Wood - Eighteen new fairy tales http://www.feedaread.com/books/Tales-from-the-Wood-9781786100924.aspx http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tales-Wood-Adrian-Farrel/dp/1786100924 Or buy from me direct.
- [I2nsf] Document status and publication[ Was: Wor… Adrian Farrel